elision doctrine in Tennessee

2025The trial court rejected this argument, however, concluding that because subsection 1(b) was not declared unconstitutional, elision did not apply.12 See Willeford v. Klepper, 597 S.W.3d 454 , 470 (Tenn. 2020) (“Under the doctrine of elision, a court may, under appropriate circumstances and in keeping with the expressed intent of a legislative body, elide an unconstitutional portion of a statute and find the remaining provisions to be constitutional and effective.” (emphasis added) (quoting Lowe’s Cos., Inc. v. Cardwell, 813 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tenn. 1991))).

2020“Under the doctrine of elision, a court may, under appropriate circumstances and in keeping with the expressed intent of a legislative body, elide an unconstitutional portion of a statute and find the remaining provisions to be constitutional and effective.” Lowe’s Cos., Inc. v. Cardwell, 813 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tenn. 1991).

2016See Crank, 468 S.W.3d at 29 (holding that application of the doctrine of elision would eliminate a statutory exemption in its entirety because the legislature would not have enacted the exemption without the allegedly unconstitutional portions).

2016See Crank, 468 S.W.3d at 29 (holding that application of the doctrine of elision would eliminate a statutory exemption in its entirety because the legislature would not have enacted the exemption without the allegedly unconstitutional portions). -6- If we were to eliminate subsection (V) entirely, Plaintiff‟s claims would fail.

1989The doctrine of elision applies “if it is made to appear from the face of the statute that the legislature would have enacted it with the objectionable features omitted, and those portions of the statute which are not objectionable will be held valid and enforceable, ... provided, of course, there is left enough of the act for a complete law capable of enforcement and fairly answering the object of its passage.” Gibson County Special School Dist. v. Palmer, 691 S.W.2d 544, 551 (Tenn.1985) (quoting Davidson County v. Elrod, 191 Tenn. 109 , 232 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1950).

1989The doctrine of elision applies “if it is made to appear from the face of the statute that the legislature would have enacted it with the objectionable features omitted, and those portions of the statute which are not objectionable will be held valid and enforceable, ... provided, of course, there is left enough of the act for a complete law capable of enforcement and fairly answering the object of its passage.” Gibson County Special School Dist. v. Palmer, 691 S.W.2d 544, 551 (Tenn.1985) (quoting Davidson County v. Elrod, 191 Tenn. 109 , 232 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1950).

1991As we noted in Gibson County Special School District v. Palmer, 691 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn.1985): The doctrine of elision is not favored.

1989The doctrine of elision applies “if it is made to appear from the face of the statute that the legislature would have enacted it with the objectionable features omitted, and those portions of the statute which are not objectionable will be held valid and enforceable, ... provided, of course, there is left enough of the act for a complete law capable of enforcement and fairly answering the object of its passage.” Gibson County Special School Dist. v. Palmer, 691 S.W.2d 544, 551 (Tenn.1985) (quoting Davidson County v. Elrod, 191 Tenn. 109 , 232 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1950).

2016New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 186 (1992). ―Severability is of course a matter of state law.‖ Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137, 139 (1996). ―Under the doctrine of elision, a court may, under appropriate circumstances and in keeping with the expressed intent of a legislative body, elide an unconstitutional portion of a statute and find the remaining provisions to be constitutional and effective.‖ Lowe’s Companies, Inc. v. Cardwell, 813 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tenn. 1991). ―The doctrine of elision is not favored,‖ Gibson Cty.

2016New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 186 (1992). ―Severability is of course a matter of state law.‖ Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137, 139 (1996). ―Under the doctrine of elision, a court may, under appropriate circumstances and in keeping with the expressed intent of a legislative body, elide an unconstitutional portion of a statute and find the remaining provisions to be constitutional and effective.‖ Lowe’s Companies, Inc. v. Cardwell, 813 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tenn. 1991). ―The doctrine of elision is not favored,‖ Gibson Cty.

2012See In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 188-89 (Tenn. 1999) (“We recognize that the legislature’s endorsement of elision does not automatically make it applicable to every situation; however, when a conclusion can be reached that the legislature would have enacted the act in question with the unconstitutional portion omitted, then elision of the unconstitutional portion is appropriate.”).

1991See McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Division, 495 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2238 , 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990).

1991See McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Division, 495 U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2238 , 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990).

1991See, e.g., Franks v. State, 772 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.1989); Waters v. State, 583 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn.1979).

1976See Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137 , 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951).

1976See Armistead v. Karsch, 192 Tenn. 137 , 237 S.W.2d 960 (1951).